Copyright [cgf, please comment]

[Robert Collins]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Harold Hunt" <huntharo@msu.edu>
To: "Suhaib Siddiqi" <ssiddiqi@inspirepharm.com>
Cc: "cygx" <cygwin-xfree@cygwin.com>
Sent: Friday, June 01, 2001 7:27 AM
Subject: RE: Copyright [cgf, please comment]


> > The problem over FAQ ccame from several people
> > have contributed to FAQ, beside me, and they are not please seeing
you
> > come with a draft and your Copyright notice reads like it is
claiming
> > the entire contents copyright and authroship notice.

For the record: I have no issue with a clear copyright notice on any
work.

Specifically regarding the Draft FAQ, I was surprised that you didn't
pickup the existing FAQ, as it has a clear CVS history allowing
author-ship to be demonstrated.

At a minimum I would have expected you to discuss the issues you have
pointed out in the last fews hours in the email list, or privately to
me.

I have not complained about you in particular having copyright on the
Draft FAQ.

I have raised, off-list initially, the issue about the web pages and new
contributions to them not having a consistent copyright.

> Show me an answer that someone else wrote and I'll be more than happy
to
> site the answer as coming from them.
<... >
> Now, I'm going to request that you reveal the names of those who are
> concerned, as I would be more than happy to work with them to address
their
> concerns.  If you choose not to reveal the names, then I'll just
happily
> assume that the "people that contacted you" are yourself and Robert
Collins,
> as you're the only two that don't seem to be on easy terms with me.
You
> can't honestly expect me to believe that someone (other than yourself
and
> Robert) would contact you in regards my forgetting to attribute an
answer to
> them, as I have always been more than willing to attribute credit to
other
> people.

I Request to Suhaib that he consider the potential issue of a consistent
copyright on the website. I didn't expect this email storm.

I didn't raise it myself (please don't take offense here, but blunt is
often clearer IME) because you, Harold, seem to be taking every thing we
disagree on and turning it into a large point of dispute, rather than
discussing it clearly. I estimated that the chances of discussing were
therefore rather slim.

I'm very sorry that a request that we as a project clarify whats
required to accept contributions (given that the source code conditions
from the XFree86 group are very clear) other than source code (thats a
pretty standard thing in projects) has generated such emotional heat.

Rob